HinesSight

Jesus explains to Sarah Silverman when life begins

Finally. We've got a divine revelation that settles a vexing abortion rights question.

"Jesus, when does life begin?'"

"At forty." (laughter) "The fertilized eggs aren't people. People are people." ... "But, people who believe fertilized eggs are people are people too. You have to love them."

Done. Settled. Finis. 

Jesus Christ, son of God, had this interchange with Sarah Silverman. I know, because I've seen the You Tube video. 

And we all know that everything on the Internet is true.

Watch. And believe.

 

Salem Community Vision and City of Salem mix it up in Grand Theatre cage fight

Couldn't resist taking some literary liberties with the title of this blog post. 

Wanted to make last night's community forum about the City of Salem's proposal for an $80 million Civic Center project -- new police facility, seismic upgrades, and other renovations -- sound more edgy and exciting that it actually was.

But for the 90 or so people who came out on a rainy State of the Union Address night to participate in some local policy discussing, it was plenty interesting. 

(Plus... before the meeting I heard Bradd Swank and Salem Police Chief Jerry Moore talking about the old days when pro wrestling matches were held at the Grand Theatre. So some of that sweaty, dramatic, toss-'em-about vibe must still pervade the venue.)

After some enjoyable guitar playing by youngster Andrew Lor (son of City Council candidate Xue Lor) and a rousing Pete Seeger-style singalong to an original song by oldster Peter Bergel, forum moderator Paul De Muniz introduced the combatants panelists. 

"In THIS corner, representing the City of Salem, City Manager Linda Norris and Police Chief Jerry Moore; in THIS corner, representing Salem Community Vision, architect Geoffrey James and design/build specialist Gene Pfeifer."

Well, the intros weren't quite like that. But kind of close. 

Everybody did a good job making their case in the forty-five minutes devoted to panelist presentations. 

That said, I readily admit to a bias in favor of the Salem Community Vision position: locating a new police facility at a site out in the community, rather than at the Civic Center, and renovating Civic Center structures rather than tearing much of them down and building anew.

I was surprised that Norris spent most of her time defending the need for a new police facility, rather than arguing for the specifics of the City's $80 million proposal. Seemed like a bad debate strategy, since Salem Community Vision agrees that a new police headquarters is needed. 

Question is, where should it be built? 

Police Chief Moore, a likable guy with a pleasing sense of humor, presented some passable arguments in favor of a Civic Center location.

However, during the Q&A/comment part of the forum, he said that a main benefit of building a new $35 million police facility with expensive underground parking adjacent to (and over part of) Mirror Pond was that it would provide a more inviting "front door" to the Civic Center.

My feeling is that, sure, if Salem taxpayers were rich enough to have no problem paying for an $80 million bond measure rather than a $50 million one, why not ask them to spend an extra $30 million for mostly cosmetic improvements to the Civic Center?

But they're not. And City officials need to realize this.

Such was pointed out by James and Pfeifer, who cautioned that if the proposed November election bond measure isn't demonstrably as lean as possible, voters will reject it. As Susann Kaltwasser also said during the comment period.

She noted that Eugene voters rejected a police facility bond vote three times. Eventually city officials went with a pared-down, yet still eminently functional, project: remodeling of an existing building paid for out of existing City of Eugene funds.

The gist of Salem Community Vision's alternative plan for a less costly new police facility away from the Civic Center and City Hall renovations can be read here. CCTV filmed the forum, so before too long you should be able to view the proceedings online, or maybe on your television. 

Bob Russo, chair of the Northgate Neighborhood Association, spoke about the benefits of building the police facility on Portland Road in north Salem. (See this newspaper story.)

This would help revitalize the area, which has a fairly high crime rate. Makes more sense to me than cramming a three-story structure with the aforementioned very expensive underground parking into the Civic Center, largely destroying a green space adjacent to Pringle Creek.

A few audience members, including moi, made comments about the City of Salem's lack of citizen involvement in the planning for this project -- including where a new police facility should be located. Sure seems like the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill should have had some say in this.

In her response to one of the commenters, City Manager Linda Norris made a curious statement: that because Salem was a large city, it didn't have a "town hall" style governance where every resident got to weigh in on decision-making. So that leaves the City Councillors to make decisions.

Wow. A classic "straw man" argument.

Nobody expects the City of Salem to operate like a Vermont hamlet with 100 residents. Frustrated citizens here just want City officials to be a lot more transparent, open, collaborative, and trusting of the people they claim to serve as public servants.

Which was the point I made in a 2-minute comment at the forum. Download Comment at forum by Brian Word. I'll include it as a continuation to this post.

If you want to read more from me on this subject, a 5-minute version, I shared a link to that in a previous post, "How City of Salem planned police facility in secretive manner." Here's the short version:

-----------------------------------

I’m Brian Hines. I have a 2-minute comment on how the City planned this project in a secretive way with almost no opportunity for citizen involvement. 

I’m sure almost everybody else here agrees that government officials should carefully listen to citizens — taxpayers — often and early on in policy decisions, rather than rarely and late.

Didn’t happen with this project. Nor did it happen with other issues like cutting down the US Bank trees, putting in downtown parking meters, building a 3rd Bridge, or redeveloping the Boise Cascade property.

In 2009 the Council decided on its own, apparently with no public hearings or discussion, that a new police facility should be built at the Civic Center.

In 2011, after planning had been busily going on for two years, City Council members — repeat, City Council members — said they were concerned about not being aware of what was going on. Not to mention the general public.

The proposal we’re talking about tonight only came to light three months ago, when the City finally put up a project web site. 

A Statesman Journal editorial said a flaw with the police facility and Civic Center project is that officials did not do enough to get the public involved from the outset. For sure.

A news story quoted a citizen who said “For the past two years the city has worked in a ‘secret process’ to create one design without considering other possible alternatives.” 

I keep being told by old-timer community activists that current City officials are more closed-minded, secretive, and uncollaborative than any administration in recent memory. Maybe ever. This has to change.

Recently we’ve seen a great example of how community involvement leads to better decisions. Citizens outraged at a proposed land grab of part of beloved Riverfront Park — the Carousel parking lot — put the brakes on a poorly thought-out plan to redevelop the Boise Cascade property.

Now a much better plan has been developed by the City and Mountain West Investment. All because citizens got involved and said, “There is a better way.”

Same thing is happening now with this project. I hope City leaders are learning a lesson: look upon ordinary citizens who want to be involved with issues as friends to be embraced, not enemies to be pushed away.

How City of Salem planned police facility in secretive manner

Investigative blogger that I am, it gives me great pride to share the results of my non-award-winning research into how officials at the City of Salem (Oregon) spent five years secretively planning a $70 million -- now $80 million -- new police facility, along with renovations to the Civic Center.

Citizen involvement in all this by, you know, those people who pay the bills for spendy government projects, was virtually zero. Nil. Nada. Zilch. 

Tomorrow (Tuesday, January 28) Salem Community Vision will hold a community forum on this project at the Grand Theatre in downtown. Time: 7 - 8:30 pm. Yeah, same evening as State of the Union address. Record Obama's speech and engage in some local policy talk.

Which won't include a 5-minute presentation by me on citizen involvement in the Police Facility/Civic Center project, largely regarding the lack thereof, which was on the agenda for a few days, before I was taken off the program.

But do not despair, fans of my rants carefully measured criticisms of how City Manager Linda Norris, Mayor Anna Peterson, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez, and other city officials are going about their business these days.

Before I was dropped from the program, I prepared a draft of my talk.
Download Notes for presentation PDF

I even sat cross-legged on the floor, iPhone timer in my lap, repeatedly reading it to make it come out to almost exactly 5 minutes. Though, in my grandiose mind, I was concerned about how much repeated bouts of thunderous applause would cut into my speaking time.

You can read my brilliant what-could-have-been oratory by clicking on the link above. I'll also copy in my talk as a continuation to this post. 

Note: the opinions expressed in the "Notes for presentation" do not necessarily represent the attitude of all Salem Community Vision members. I am just one member of the group, and a strong supporter of Salem Community Vision goals, being one of the people who got it going. But on some subjects I haven't, and won't, agree with what the group as a whole decides. That's the nature of all groups, really: a big tent shelters all sorts of people.

What's important here is my well-documented conclusion in my proposed talk: Citizen involvement should happen often and early on in governmental policy-making, especially with large, costly, controversial projects. 

Not rarely and late, as the community-involvement-phobic planners of this project have acted. I keep hearing how the current leadership of the City of Salem is the most secretive and least collaborative of any administration in many, many years.

What I wrote supports this.

I also will share background notes concerning this project that I put together, mostly from newspaper stories, before composing the 5 minute talk. Facts and direct quotes speak loudly.
Download Timeline of events PDF

Feel free to adapt my talk into other creative forms.

I could easily see what I wrote as being adapted into a mime act -- I picture the oft-seen mime scene of being pressed against a glass surface, trying to find a way in, while city officials busily plan their $70 million project behind closed doors.

It also could be re-written to be an elementary school play, though I fear this could discourage impressionable young minds from ever becoming involved in civic issues.

Being a book author who has accumulated countless rejection letters from publishers and agents who didn't recognize my obvious creative genius, and having blogged about how I embrace my inner Anguished Artist (while damning the fools at the Statesman Journal who pick amateur Oregon State Fair photos to print in the paper), I look upon this on-the-agenda, off-the-agenda experience as part of my personal growth.

It also will give me something to talk about if I ever join a Tortured Artist support group. Here's my marvelous composition:

Good questions about the new Boise Cascade proposal

I'm glad that the Pringle Square/Boise Cascade development here in Salem has sprung back to life. This is a PDF version of today's Statesman Journal story.
Download A closer look at the new Boise Cascade proposal

The rush to rubber stamp the new development approach bothers me, though.

Geez, tomorrow the City Council is  planning to approve tax breaks for Mountain West Investment, along with paying a sweetheart purchase price of $2 million for 3.8 essentially undevelopable acres that would be added to Riverfront Park.

This project has been stumbling along for quite a few years. How about taking a month for the public to weigh in on the pros and cons on the deal that the City of Salem and Mountain West Investment have brokered?

And only revealed a few days ago.

Oh, I think I know the answer: City officials are worried that citizens will have good questions, the answers to which might lead to some changes in the deal that would be more beneficial to taxpayers.

Below is a message that Richard Reid sent to City Councillors and other officials today. He asks some excellent questions.

I'm not saying that some honest answers would derail the new project, which for sure is much better than the previous incarnation that got blocked by citizens objecting to a takeover of Riverfront Park land for an access road that, even if approved by the City, would have required National Park Service approval that was unlikely to be granted (because the Park was built with federal funds).

What's the harm in postponing Council action on the deal until Salemians can ask questions and get some answers?

Dear Councilors,

A closer look at this article raises some interesting questions

Why are taxpayers likely to pay $2 million for property appraised at $700,000 to $800,000? The article refers to the “groundswell” of community support for completing the Park as if this was a recent phenomenon. But the plan/vision was established years ago. Why doesn’t the city simply condemn the property and pay an “eminent domain” price?

Yes, plans to build apartments on what many assumed would be parkland created an “uproar” but what killed the deal was the failure of both the City and Mountain West to research the legal ramifications of building a public road on public parkland through the Carousel parking lot to the proposed apartments. 

Mayor Peterson refers to the “one-time” opportunity to pay 3 times the price for the parcel and justifies it by claiming the park expansion will be like an engine on the economic development train. But the Mayor and other Councilors were silent when that same train almost left the station when Council threatened to approve apartment construction covering 3.8 acres of parkland.

Mountain West’s continued bungling is a reminder that the City, any City, needs to be vigilant when considering entanglements with real estate developers. City of Keizer taxpayers had to pay a tidy sum last year because someone in that city and others on its council ignored facts in the public record.

Mountain West knew or should have known the difficulties associated with railroad crossing and right of way. And everyone knows the land in and around the Boise property is very poisonous.

The paper says Mountain West is dusting off a “delayed” plan. To be clear Mountain West delayed their plans once they discovered what other 30-year old plans for the property reveal; the costs of removing that warehouse make profitable planning a challenge for anyone.

To close the deal, or fuel Mayor Peterson’s economic engine, Mountain West is dusting off its application for both a tax abatement and other “help” with financing. Tomorrow night City Council, the same folks who want a third bridge, have the power to commit Salem taxpayers to a $10 million giveaway and an undetermined “project bond” to be secured by Mountain West, the same folks who seemed to be confused about rail right of way and unaware of poisons on their property.

The article asks if the developer will make a profit and of course the developer claims the project may just break-even after burning “X-million” on chasing an ill-conceived project. 

It’s outrageous that the reporter never refers to the “X-million” the City would have lost if the apartments had been built on the economic engine parkland, or the money always required to hook up private development to public services. The article fails to ask whether or not the taxpayers will profit from this or any other real estate development. 

How will this deal pencil out? Who will ask staff to estimate the tax revenues the project is supposed to create? Will staff calculate when the estimated tax revenues will repay the public investment in this development? 

Is it worth risking tax abatements and other considerable taxpayer investment on a “break-even” project? 

Richard Reid

City of Salem spends $25,000 on unethical biased "push poll"

Few people are surprised when a government body wastes money. But there is waste, and then there is waste!!!

Spending that makes you think, What the #!@& is going on here? This is absolutely absurd!

We have a really good example right here in Salem, Oregon. Bradd Swank described the outrage in a January 23 letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal.
Download $25_000 in taxpayer dollars wasted PDF

$25,000 in taxpayer dollars wasted on facility campaign

In October 2013, Salem approved $25,000 (taxpayer dollars) for a Portland political consultant’s help on an $80 million bond vote for city hall/possible library improvements and a new police facility. The result, so far, is a city website poll that started Jan. 21 that failed me four times.

Known politically as a “push” poll, it presents opinions, slanted questions and unsubstantiated information to “push” views other than seek unbiased responses. It gets people agreeing, makes political assertions and then asks further questions making the assertions more appealing.

This “push” poll asserts — in several places — political conclusions supporting a single proposed location for the police. Some questions imply, as fact, that all alternative police/court sites would be less efficient, not centrally located and eventually more expensive.

These are issues with much local professional and political disagreement, some from professionals who helped the county save tens of millions of dollars on the county facility redo — and would like similar thought for a city police/court facility.

Eugene’s similar-sized new facility was tens of millions of dollars less than proposed here. Why buy a Cadillac? Why public money on consultants to help convince us we should? Is it appropriate to use taxpayer money to sell a future bond measure vote?

Bradd Swank
Salem

Having heard about the poll on January 21, I found a link to the survey on a City of Salem web page about the Public Safety Facility and Civic Center Seismic Need project.

I also found the survey distressingly biased. It really is largely a push poll. Which isn't a compliment. Especially for a government agency supposedly dedicated to providing accurate information to citizens.

Here's a PDF file of the survey. Read it and see what you think. 
Download Survey PDF-New Police Facility, Salem Civic Center Survey

There are various definitions of a push poll. These usually are conducted by phone and only consist of a few questions. Like, "Would it make you more or less likely to vote for Joe Jones if you knew that he sliced up live kittens, put them in a blender, and drank them for breakfast?"

Naturally Joe Jones actually doesn't do this. The question is just intended to put the thought in someone's mind, akin to the classic loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Here's a pertinent quote from a Pollster.com article, "So what is a *push* poll?" After talking about telephone surveys that are obvious push polls, Mark Blumenthal says:

If a pollster lies in a real survey, that's sleazy and wrong.

The City of Salem online survey has this at the beginning: 

The survey is similar to a scientific poll of Salem voters conducted in mid-January 2014 by an opinion research firm.

So this was a "real survey." I consider that the City of Salem, with the pollster's acquiescence, lied in it. Ergo, what the City of Salem did is sleazy and wrong. Let's consider the evidence. When I first read question #7, it immediately struck me as especially push'y, being factually incorrect.
--------------------------

7. Which of the following options for building a new Salem police facility would you most prefer?

Which of the following options for building a new Salem police facility would you most prefer?  Building a new police facility on the City-owned Civic Center campus in downtown Salem. Construction costs for this option are higher and will increase property taxes more in the short-term. However, being nearby other city services, including the municipal courts, will make it more efficient to meet needs of all Salem’s residents and less costly to tax payers over the long-term. Building a new police facility on an existing vacant lot outside the downtown core. Construction costs for this option are lower and will require a smaller property tax increase in the short-term. However, being farther away from other city services, including the municipal court, will make it less efficient to meet needs of all Salem’s residents and more costly to taxpayers over the long-term. Neither/don’t support a new police station Don’t know

--------------------------
The alternatives presented to the survey-taker are stated as factual truths.

A police facility built at the Civic Center will be less costly to tax payers over the long term, even though the construction costs are higher. A police facility built on an existing vacant lot outside the downtown core will be more costly to taxpayers over the long-term.

Since Salem Community Vision is claiming that a new police facility built away from the Civic Center could cost about $15 million less than the $35 million cost of a Civic Center police facility, I couldn't understand how that $15 million saving meshed with Question 7. 

So I emailed the City's coordinator for this project, Courtney Knox Busch.

I’m curious about the City’s basis for question 7 in your Survey Monkey poll (shown below). The City makes factual statements in the first two options: (1) that building a new police facility at the Civic Center will be less costly to taxpayers over the long-term, and conversely, (2) that building a new police facility on an existing lot away from the Civic Center will be more costly to taxpayers over the long-term. (my emphasis in bold) 

Given that the City says in the poll introduction that this is similar to a scientific survey conducted by a polling firm, I doubt you were intending question 7 to sound like a “push poll.” Namely, a question whose biased phrasing invites a certain answer.

 

So I’m assuming that the City has documentation, analyses, spreadsheets, or what-not to back up the contention that, say, a $35 million police facility built at the Civic Center would be less expensive to taxpayers in the long-term than a $20 million facility built on a vacant lot elsewhere in Salem.

 

I find it difficult to believe that this is the case, having a modicum of financial analysis ability. But I’m open to being persuaded. So please send me the City’s basis for phrasing question 7 in the way that it was worded. I assume this will include consideration of such factors as lost property tax revenue if the City purchases a lot currently owned privately, and the cost of financing an extra $15 million or so given the higher cost of building at the Civic Center, with underground parking and such.

 

That said, the poll question does not state that a new police facility built away from the Civic Center would be on private land. So I assume the City has considered what the cost would be for a new police facility built on land the City already owns, which would not reduce property tax revenues.

 

Thanks. I’m planning to write a blog post about the poll tonight or tomorrow, so I’d appreciate getting the documentation ASAP.

 

I’m being sincere, nor sarcastic, when I say that I doubt the City would have worded this question the way it did without justification/documentation. Back in my health planning days with state government and in my research associate days at OHSU, I designed and worked on quite a few opinion surveys. I’m familiar with how professional statisticians and survey researchers do things. Phrasing of questions isn’t taken lightly; careful consideration is given to every word. 

 

     — Brian Hines

This is the response I received from Busch:

Thank you for your question, Brian.

 

Question #7 aims to better understand the community appetite for the new facility and tries to differentiate between capital and operating costs. We do know that operating a police facility that is separated from Municipal Court and other City operations will lead to an increase in operational costs. 

    Courtney

To which I replied:

Re. your message below… Yes, but that isn’t what the question says. The clear message is that a police facility located at the Civic Center will be “less costly to taxpayers over the long term.”

So again, I’m asking for evidence in support of this. How is it possible for an $80 million bond measure that includes construction of a police facility at the Civic Center to be less costly to taxpayers over the long term than, say, a $50 million bond measure that includes construction of a police facility at another site out in the community?

 

The bond interest and capital repayment costs will be much higher for the $80 million bond. Adjust for some possible lost property tax revenue, if the $50 million option involves private land; add some gasoline and time costs for police administrators to drive to the Civic Center for City meetings (the Municipal Court could be located adjacent to the off-Civic Center police building, obviating the need to travel for court cases), and its difficult to see how the net savings isn’t very close to $30 million.

 

I’m not trying to make waves. I’m just trying to learn the basis for question #7. After all, it isn’t framed in the form of a “what if?” "What if it were less expensive to taxpayers to build a police facility at the Civic Center?" Rather, question 7 involves some supposedly factual propositions, which I’m trying to learn the basis for.

 

If this is the best you can do, I’ll reluctantly accept that. But if you can be more specific about the supposed cost savings to the taxpayer by building at the Civic Center, please send that info to me. Thanks. I appreciate your quick reply. 

 

    — Brian

Haven't gotten any additional information.

So I believe Bradd Swank was correct when he said that the $25,000 spent by the City of Salem on a survey was indeed largely a "push poll." If this isn't illegal for a government agency to do in preparation for a possible bond levy vote, it sure seems unethical to me.

Community forum on how to save Salem taxpayers $30 million

Salem Community Vision is inviting people to come to an open community forum about alternative ways of building a new policy facility and renovating the Civic Center: 

Tuesday, January 28, 7 to 8:30 pm, Grand Theatre -- 191 High Street NE, downtown Salem. Doors open at 6:30 pm. Click image to enlarge. Feel free to share.

Come one, come all. You'll have a good time! Really. 

This is a great opportunity to engage in what democracy is all about: having a say in governmental decisions that affect you. 

The City of Salem will be represented by City Manager Linda Norris and Police Chief Gerald Moore, a.k.a. Gerry and Jerry. They will present the City's $80 million proposal to build a new Police Facility with underground parking adjacent to Mirror Pond at the Civic Center site, along with seismic retrofitting of City Hall and other renovations.

Architect Geoffrey James and Design/Build specialist Gene Pfeifer will present what Salem Community Vision considers to be a lower-cost and better alternative: locate the Police Facility away from the Civic Center; make seismic improvements to the City Hall and Library without demolishing existing structures and green spaces. 

The community forum will be moderated by Paul DeMuniz, retired Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court. Attendees will be encouraged to ask questions of the panelists and comment on the alternative Police Facility/Civic Center proposals.

Much more information can be found on the Salem Community Vision web site:
www.salemcommunityvision.com

Check out the Salem Community Vision Facebook page. And give them a "Like."

Fairview Addition -- looks like a cool Salem residential development

Last year I blogged, "Salem needs an 'Edwards Addition' like Monmouth has." Now developer Eric Olsen and his realtor partner Molly Beecroft have made that dream come true.

(I'm on a magical thinking roll, having succeeded in manifesting a Cafe Yumm in south Salem after visualizing such in a 2011 blog post.)

Today Eric emailed me from the Mid-Valley Home Show at the Fairgrounds, saying he and Molly were previewing the vision of a Fairview Addition. 

My wife and I headed over to the Home Show this afternoon, finding the Olsen non-twins (sorry, couldn't resist) at the same booth location from almost exactly a year ago, when I told Eric he should do his "new traditional development" thing -- front porches, cars in back, etc. -- here in Salem.

Well, they are. Note the "Now Coming to Salem" banner.

Below is the Fairview Addition map. 
Download Fairview Addition (this PDF file has a Design Reservation or Information Request form on the back)

Olsen Design & Development's 50 acres are outlined in red. This is part of the Sustainable Fairview property that has taken a long time to develop. The arrow at the top points to Pringle Creek Community, the first Green development to be built on the site of the old Fairview Training Center.

A more traditional multi-family development, a.k.a. apartments, is slated to be built on the right bottom of the map, where it says "Future Simpson Hills Development." I recall Eric saying that single family homes are planned for the lower part of the Simpson Hills property.

Leslie Middle School is on the top left. Appealingly, the green space right below the school that's part of Fairview Addition is titled "Urban Farm/Edible Schoolyard." An outdoor ampitheatre is the other green space in the middle of the map, with an arrow pointing at it.

Having drunk way too much whiskey, consumed too many drugs, and gotten way too little sleep in the days prior to visiting the Home Show, I bizarrely found myself writing a check to Amerititle for a deposit that reserves the right to purchase two lots at Fairview Addition.

I'm saying this to bolster my already-solid case for backing out of the deal if Laurel and I change our minds; the Design Reservation form says "Because of the early stages of this Development either party may withdraw from this Design Reservation for any reason by requesting such termination in Salem, Oregon where funds will be held."

We aren't ready to move from our non-easy-care ten acres in rural south Salem yet, as noted in my first post about Olsen Development. But I also really liked the idea of getting in on the ground floor, so to speak, of Fairview Addition. 

In fact, arguably we are the ground floor -- being the first to put down a deposit on any Fairview Addition lot. Molly was kind enough to let me afix two red dots to lots 10 and 11 on the map.

I enjoyed seeing how thrilled Realtor Molly was when I did this. Had to admit that it gave a whole different feel to the Fairview Addition poster board. Lots are selling fast! Just 35 out of 37 left! (There will be additional construction phases on the Olsen Design & Development property outlined in red.)

We chose the lots in a considered, rational, deliberative manner that took about five seconds. I asked Eric, "What do you suggest?" and he said "I think you'd like these lots," pointing to 10 and 11. Done!

Of such intuitive moments are wonderful futures made. Or, horrific mistakes.

Which is why I kept re-reading the fine print on the Design Reservation form, which was in small enough type to make it difficult for my aged eyes to read. Eric helpfully reassured me that either I have put down a refundable deposit on the lots, or I have signed a power of attorney that gives Olsen Design & Development the right to sell everything that I own and cast me into abject poverty. 

Having jumped into a hastily considered real estate purchase, I feel good that I did so with a developer who has a good sense of humor. Assuming Eric was kidding...

My wife and I, of course, have not yet seen the lots that we now have a $1,000 deposit on. Details, details. I liked the fact that the lots are adjacent to The Woods, 15 acres that, hopefully, always will remain woodsy. Eric was pretty sure that they will. Naturally we need to learn more about this.

Laurel and I are a long way from jumping into the deep end of Fairview Addition, but we have our toes in the water. 

I like Eric and Molly's style a lot. They're the sort of residential developers Salem needs. Creative. Sustainable. Personable. Community-oriented. In my first post I shared part of the Edwards Addition Master Plan.

Intangibles

Probably most exciting are the things you can’t master plan, but grow out of a diversity of people and concern for the built environment.  Book clubs, community gardens, holiday open houses and a Halloween parade are a few things we could have never designed, but organically formed from the desire to become a neighborhood beyond sticks and mortar.

Nicely said.

Science Night at Salem's Gilgamesh Brewery: beerific!

My wife and I just got back from Science Night at south Salem's Gilgamesh brewpub. Highly enjoyable. We learned a lot about microorganisms from Willamette University biology professor Melissa Marks. 

Almost makes me want to go back to college, listening to someone as engaging as Marks was. Of course, I don't remember any college classes I took where I could drink a craft beer and eat a tasty hummus plate while listening to a lecture. 

Which goes a long way toward explaining the appeal of Science Night (every 3rd Thursday, 7-9 pm, all ages welcome).

You get to learn about a scientific subject in a decidedly non-academic atmosphere.

I rarely visit bars or brewpubs. I hardly ever drink beer. So Science Night -- we've been to two at Gilgamesh -- is an opportunity for me to venture into a fresh combination of experiences: food + beer + sitting at a long table with strangers + hearing a science talk = FUN!

My wife and I appreciate what Gilgamesh Brewery is offering Salem.

It's simply way cool to sit in a brewpub, sipping a beer, eating some vegetarian-friendly food, listening to an entertaining scientist-type tell us about an interesting subject, then enjoy a Q & A period where other Science Night'ers ask great questions and get fascinating answers.

Speaking of cool...

This was Melissa Marks' favorite word.

Aside from "bacteria," I guess. She used it entertainingly. This fact or that finding wasn't just important; it was cool! I would have been more interested in science during my college years if I'd had a professor like marks.

It is indeed cool that each of us is made of up of many more bacterial cells than human cells. (Though bacteria only weigh 2-3 pounds, so we can't blame them when we get on the scale.)

It also is cool that bacteria are our distant ancestors. We Homo sapiens have evolved from single and multi-celled organisms, all the way to who we are now: creatures who need those ancestors to survive.

I hadn't known that babies are born pristine, so to speak. The mother's womb is a sterile environment. Going through the birth canal starts the microorganism accumulating process. After that, doing things like sucking on a pacifer that falls on the floor introduces more beneficial "germs" into our bodies.

This is good for us. Primitive tribes have greater colonies of good microorganisms than we do. Of course, they also lack modern health care, so on average they don't live as long as us. 

But Marks emphasized over and over that antibiotics in whatever form (in soap, for example, or wipes) are very bad for humankind when used in excess. Killing bad bacteria also kills good bacteria. 

There are some interesting upcoming topics for Science Night. Evolution and how we make decisions are next up. I'll be there, beer in hand. Given how craft beer-crazy Oregon has become, I'm kind of embarassed to admit that my current beer consumption consists of that single monthly glass I have at Gilgamesh's Science Night.

I really enjoy that beer though. Tastes so much better than the beer of old. And like I said, science seems a lot more interesting while drinking a beer.

[Off-topic brewpub etiquette question for Ms. Brewpub Answer Girl, if she exists:

I am sitting at a quasi-communal long wood table. My wife is next to me. Next to her, and across from us, are three women who have ordered items that come with fries. They have large orders. I sense, correctly, that the women cannot eat all of the fries. I didn't order fries, because I don't want an entire order. But I want just the amount that is left on their plates. We have been exchanging some pleasantries with the women, but otherwise don't know them. Is it proper brewpub etiquette for me to say, "Would you mind if I finished your fries?" I didn't do this, though I thought about saying it. A lot. Especially after I finished my beer.]

Obamacare is doing just fine. And will do even better.

The rumors of Obamacare's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Every month the news gets better. And we've just started the 2014 open enrollment period, which runs until March 31.

Ezra Klein has a good factual overview of what is going on with the Affordable Care Act in "The death of Obamacare's death spiral."

Obamacare haters have been fantasizing about the prospect of few young people signing up for coverage. Which explains why they've been running deceptive ads aimed at discouraging younger folk from getting health insurance, an act that borders on malevolence.

What kind of morally deficient person believes it is good for people to lack health insurance, leaving them at high risk of either going bankrupt if they have a serious illness, or being forced to forego necessary health care?

Fortunately, Klein points out that early enrollment in Obamacare, though tilted somewhat toward older people, is well in line with both the Massachusetts experience and actuarial feasibility.

No one anywhere expected that the risk pool would be balanced by Jan. 1. Major health laws always follow the same pattern: The people who badly need insurance sign up first, and they tend to be older and sicker. Younger people sign up later -- typically right before the penalty hits. So far, the age pattern in Obamacare enrollment is tracking the age pattern in enrollment for the Massachusetts reforms quite closely.

...The risk of a "death spiral" is over. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that if the market's age distribution freezes at its current level -- an extremely unlikely scenario -- "overall costs in individual market plans would be about 2.4% higher than premium revenues." So, in theory, premiums costs might rise by a few percentage points. That's a problem, but it's nothing even in the neighborhood of a death spiral.

So Republicans need to start finding some other issue to hang their 2014 election hopes on. Hmmmm...

Benghazi? No, investigation after investigation has found very little to criticize the Administration on here.

IRS scandal? No, the FBI has determined that no laws were broken.

Economy? No, even with the GOP government shutdown and other shenanigans, jobs are steadily being created and the stock market is flirting with new highs.

Deficits? No, the federal budget deficit is dropping fast.

Back to Obamacare, I guess. Unfortunately for the GOP, the Affordable Care Act is going to become increasingly popular with Americans, just as Social Security and Medicare did after shaky starts. 

My wife was able to get a much better replacement policy through Cover Oregon than her over-priced and under-benefitted Regence Blue Cross policy that was cancelled. Less expensive. Lower deductible. Even without a subsidy.

Republicans who want to do away with Obamacare will have to try to pry her policy out of her Affordable Care Act-loving hands.

Which will be joined by many millions of other hands belonging to people who finally have decent health insurance thanks to Obamacare.

Salem doesn't even get mentioned in Oregon putdown

This is pathetic.

Salem apparently is so inconsequential in the eye of an Oregon-hype-deflater, this town didn't even merit a mention in her Daily Beast piece, "Hold Up Hipsters: Stop Obsessing Over Oregon."

Now, I didn't find Nina Strochlic's observations about Oregon all that insightful. Or believable. She ends with:

So, for those ready to pack up a U-Haul after gawking at the Oregonian’s real-estate section and skimming the gastronomy buzz, take a trip down the backroads to see if the state really lives up to all the hype filling your ears and, possibly, clouding your eyes. Most importantly of all: Bring an umbrella.

As a commenter on her piece noted, no real Oregonian uses an umbrella. But since she is talking to newcomers, I guess her advice is somewhat valid, albeit old-hat.

Come on: criticizing Oregon for its rain is horribly uncreative. Along with largely untrue. Strochlic, who lived here for 17 years, correctly says that much of the state east of the Cascades is quite sunny and dry.

But she goes overboard with:

Oregon’s climate may be lauded as an alluringly mild feature of the state, but anyone who knows the Pacific Northwest can attest to a constant drizzle of rain that barely lets up for nine brutally gray months.

Huh? So there are only three months when it isn't gray and rainy? I beg to differ.

Especially in these even milder times of global warming. May through October, six months, offers pretty reliably nice weather here in the central Willamette Valley on the wet side of the mountains.

Anyway, I was looking forward to reading a caustic putdown of Salem, given that we're the state capital and the second or third largest city in Oregon, depending on whether the Eugene or Salem Chamber of Commerce is doing the counting.

Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis earned some insults. (Along with praise, which I'm leaving out.)

All in all, the state is incredibly homogenous: Portland clocks in as the whitest major city in the country and is, apparently, getting even less diverse.

...Apart from the leafy college campus, Eugene, the state’s second-largest city, offers little in-town entertainment to a visitor. Two malls comprise most of the shopping options, and a flailing downtown has only recently become populated with a movie theater and a few new restaurants. Corvallis, home to Oregon State University, boasts a small downtown to supplement the campus.

Hey, hey! -- I screamed inside my head when I got to the end of the piece -- you skipped a major town along the I-5 corridor! Where's the Salem insult?!

Since Strochlic says she went to the University of Oregon for four of her seventeen years here, I'll bet that Salem was just a glimpse from the freeway as she drove past on her way to or from Eugene.

Or maybe, since she thinks Eugene and Corvallis have boring downtowns, a mention of Salem's would have been redundant.

I haven't spent much time recently in either of the university towns to our south. But my impression is that Salem's downtown has just about as many pluses and minuses as the urban cores of Eugene and Corvallis.

Sure seems like we deserved a snide Daily Beast remark.

First visit to Salem Summit Company: love this place!

I can't believe it took me so long to visit the Salem Summit Company outdoor store here in Salem, Oregon. It's been open for, what, a year and a half? 

Whenever I thought about stopping by, I was on my way to somewhere else.

Hey, being retired doesn't mean I'm not hugely busy. I've got Tai Chi classes, coffee shop blogging, Minto Brown Park exercising, and so much else to do.

Today, though, I finally did the deed. 

Hugely impressed. Great store. Friendly staff. Excellent selection of merchandise in a compact space. Kind of like REI compressed down to the main stuff outdoors'y people really need.

Like jackets, gloves, shoes, packs, camping gear. And naturally, t-shirts. 

Salem Summit Company is famous for its t-shirt design. Sarah Evans of SalemIs described this happenin' piece of apparel. 

I can’t remember exactly when or where I first spotted one. It was probably at a summertime barbecue, or maybe on a camping trip with friends. It might have been green, or blue, or heather black. Wherever it was, I know I smiled at the lettering below the trees-and-mountains logo: “Salem, USA Elevation 214 Feet.”

Little did I know that I was staring at what would become a mini-fashion trend among outdoorsy Salemites. T-shirts for Salem Summit Company, an outdoor gear store that opened downtown on State Street in March 2012, frequently pop up around town — and out on the Northwest’s trails, rivers and mountains. I rarely go out in Salem anymore without seeing one of the shirts on a stranger. And they frequently show up on at least one of my friends (and often more than one) at our gatherings.

I got one. Charcoal gray, as displayed in the photo. Very comfortable. Soft cotton. I'm a t-shirt connoisseur. Salem Summit Company has done the t-shirt thing right.

So much so, they attracted a large group of wearers to a photo shoot at Riverfront Park last year. I wasn't there, of course, being a latecomer to the Salem Summit Company party.

Well, better late than never.

I exited the store wearing my newly-bought t-shirt, feeling like a kid who just has to wear his new shoes after being bought. I also got myself a much-needed Mountain Hard Wear Stimulus Glove. 

Though this sounds like something you'd buy in a sex toy shop, fortunately (or unfortunately) the glove is only designed to stimulate the screen of a smartphone. It'll be handy, literally, to be able to easily check my email and twitter feed while enjoying the outdoors on a cold day.

When I went into the Salem Summit Company store, I joked with an employee about wearing an REI rain jacket. The subject of REI came up again in a conversation with another staffer.

I told him that I consider Keizer Station to be a hell-hole of an autocentric shopping center that I only visit under extreme duress -- like when a store there has something that can't be gotten anywhere else.

I like REI, but I said that Salem Summit Company should do just fine after REI opens. Just as LifeSource Natural Foods doesn't appear to be suffering after Natural Grocers and Trader Joes came to town. The Salem Summit owner, Al Tandy, agrees:
Download Salem Summit newspaper story 

Salem Summit Company offers a shopping experience that REI can't match. It's way more relaxed and intimate, with a trying-on room near at hand, knowledgeable staff always available to answer questions, and a carefully selected set of quality merchandise.

I'm looking forward to many more visits to this locally-owned store.

And getting even more intimate with my Mountain Hard Wear Stimulus Glove.

It's a great glove, one of the most comfortable I've ever worn. More of a driving and sidewalk-strolling sort of glove than a Mt. Everest glove. I wore the pair of gloves home also, feeling all outdoorsy in my Mini Cooper with the heat set to 70 degrees.

Smart urban design can turn Salem into Happy Town

Like most long-time residents of the Salem, Oregon area, I've got a love-hate relationship going with my town. 

I can't leave her. I adore her many wonderful qualities. But man, sometimes she drives me freaking crazy. When she's annoying, she really is hard to live with. Or rather, in. 

My Strange Up Salem column in this issue of Salem Weekly is called "How Salem Can Become Happy Town." Check it out. 

I talk about how good urban design can make Salem, or any town, into a much happier place.

This simple appealing notion is the focus of Happy City, by Charles Montgomery. Terrific book, where I got my inspiration for the column. I'm almost finished with it. Will write a post about the book when I read the whole thing.

For now, I'll just share a few semi-random thought-snippets...

-- I was talking today with a woman about what we liked and didn't like about Salem. I started blabbing about the New Urbanism and similar ideas in the Happy City Book.

How cool it would be if Salem had a development like Northwest Crossing in Bend, Edward's Addition in Monmouth, or lots of places in Portland, walkable/bikable, homes with front porches, cars parked in back, a genuine neighborhood feel.

She gently interrupted me. "I live in a place like that." Turned out to be an older neighborhood in Salem. I was mildly chagrined. I'd forgotten that much of the New Urbanism is bringing back old ideas about cities. 

The woman did agree about how nice it was to have houses that focus on the street rather than a back yard; where people interact with each other as they enter and leave the house; say hello to neighbors strolling by on the sidewalk.

She told me that even though her neighborhood now isn't a mixed use area, there are signs of what used to be: houses that evidently used to have a shop downstairs with living quarters upstairs. 

Everything old is new again in urban design.

-- The Happy City book mentions Portland several times. Here's an interesting passage about bicycling in Portland. I guess I'm a 60 percenter. I have a mountain bike and a recently-acquired  StreetStrider outdoor elliptical bike, which I ride on dedicated trails (mostly at Minto Brown Park).

I've never ridden a bike on city streets in Salem, and don't have an urge to do so. Montgomery writes about how this is a common attitude, talking about how most people need to feel safe while biking.

Traffic planners learned this in Portland, Oregon, a city that has spent two decades trying to coax people onto bikes. The city painted bike lanes along busy roads before the turn of the century. But by the mid-2000s the lanes remained empty most of the time.

Roger Geller, the city's bicycle coordinator, looked at surveys of the city's commuters and realized that they were building infrastructure for a rare species. 

Only about 5 percent of Portlanders were strong and fearless enough to negotiate most busy streets by bicycle. Another 7 percent of the population were enthused and confident enough to try the on-street bike lanes.

Nobody else had the moxie to ride amid all that fast-moving metal. About a third of the population fell into what Geller called the "no way, no how" group: people who would never be into cycling.

"That made me just really depressed," said Geller, but then he realized that close to 60 percent of the population fell into a group he called the "enthused but concerned." These were people who were interested in cycling but worried about the difficulty, the discomfort, and the danger.

They would cycle only if the experience was as safe and comfortable as riding in a car or in a bus. So Geller and his colleagues sent out to create a network of "low-stress" bikeways that either physically separated cyclists from cars or slowed cars down past the speed of fear on shared routes.

It worked. Commuting by bike more than doubled in Portland between 2000 and 2008.

-- Can't remember where I learned about Copenhagen's Mountain Dwellings (above). Don't believe it was the Happy City book. Whatever... way cool design. Even with 2/3 parking and 1/3 living. Shows what can happen when creative urban design happens in an area where people appreciate it.

The Mountain Dwellings are the 2nd generation of the VM Houses – same client, same size and same street. The program, however, is 2/3  parking and 1/3 living. What if the parking area became the base upon which to place terraced housing – like a concrete hillside covered by a thin layer of housing, cascading from the 11th floor to the street edge?

Rather than doing two separate buildings next to each other – a parking and a housing block – we decided to merge the two functions into a symbiotic relationship. The parking area needs to be connected to the street, and the homes require sunlight, fresh air and views, thus all apartments have roof gardens facing the sun, amazing views and parking on the 10th floor.

The Mountain Dwellings appear as a suburban neighbourhood of garden homes flowing over a 10-storey building – suburban living with urban density.

City of Salem planned new police facility in backwards way

The more I learn about how the Mayor, City Manager, and other public officials went about planning a new Police Facility for Salem, Oregon, the screwier that process looks. 

In fact, it was backwards -- based on how the International Association of Chiefs of Police say things should be done in "Police Facility Planning Guidelines -- Desk Reference for Law Enforcement Executives."
Download Police Facility Planning Guidelines

Here's the key steps in what the City of Salem did, as documented under "Timeline of Council Actions" on the web page devoted to Public Safety Facility and Civic Center Seismic Need.

(1) September 2010: Decide that a new Police Facility was needed, and it should be located at the Civic Center. A City Council subcommittee was charged with making this happen. The subcommitte would work with consulting firms (ZGF/CBTwo) and a University of Oregon Sustainable Cities Initiative student project. 

(2) May 2011: After the students were instructed to come up with ideas for a Police Facility at the CIvic Center, the consulting firm "refined best of student's work," continuing to focus solely on a Civic Center site. 

(3) November 2011: City staff and the ZGF/CBTwo consultants consider the pluses and minuses of alternative sites in a report. The subcommitee decides that the Civic Center site is the best option, which isn't surprising, since it has spent over a year and a lot of money planning for a new police facility at the Civic Center.

(4) June 2013: After more work by the consultants, a $70 million project plan for a Civic Center Police Facility and seismic upgrades/renovations is unveiled at a City Council work session. A program is initiated that would include "outreach to community leaders and the general public." 

Those steps (1) - (4) involved essentially zero public input.

There was basically no opportunity for citizens to be involved with planning for a new police facility, or to weigh in on the pluses and minuses of locating this facility in a brand new building at the Civic Center. Even City Council members complained they were kept in the dark about this project.

Alternatives to the Civic Center site for a Police Facility were only considered after many tens of thousands of dollars had been spent on planning for a project at the Civic Center. 

Let's contrast the City of Salem's approach with how the International Association of Chiefs of Police guidelines say planning for a new police facility should be done. Below are some initial key steps in that recommended process.

(Note: this Chiefs of Police document was funded by the United States Department of Justice; everybody involved was American, aside from one Canadian project advisor; so the document seems to be "international" pretty much in name only.)

(1) Identify and analyze deficiencies with the existing building. Form a Planning Team, which eventually expands to include a Pre-Design team. Evaluate proposals from architectural firms/consultants who are interested in working on the project. 

(2) Establish community support for the project. Which at this point is just to build a new police facility or renovate the old one, since it hasn't yet been decided what the facility would look like or where it would be located. An educational campaign communicates the deficiencies in the existing building and the need for a new one.

(3) Conduct a space needs analysis for the new police facility. Evaluate facility options: Renovation of the existing building, acquisition and adaptation of an existing non-law enforcement facility, or new construction. Evaluate potential facility sites.

(4) Develop preliminary project design and estimated construction costs.  

So the City of Salem did indeed do things backwards.

Mayor Anna Peterson and City Manager Linda Norris started off by choosing a site for a new police facility -- the Civic Center. This was their Step One, which in the schema summarized above is Step Three of the approach recommended by experts in this area.

It is poor planning to consider alternative facility options (renovation of existing building, remodeling of another building, new construction) only after project consultants and a planning team have spend more than than a year focused on building a new police facility at the Civic Center.

And then, to have the project consultants and planning team be the ones who decide whether there are viable alternatives to the police facility plan that they had spent so much time, money, and effort developing.

Again, with basically zero community input, another backwards approach by the City of Salem.

Instead of seeking community support for a new police facility early on, before the location and basic design of a facility has been settled on, the City of Salem did its planning in near-secrecy, then unveiled the resulting $70 million plan without any previous public hearings or community input.

Now City officials are running around trying to build support for the plan, which the Police Chiefs planning document says should be done before site selection and design alternatives have been assessed.

No wonder people are asking questions about such a screwy process.

Salem Community Vision, for one. It isn't too late to consider potentially much less expensive and more effective alternatives to the City of Salem's "rush to judgment" $70 million plan.

Salem (Oregon) needs a Pringle Creek "riverwalk"

Over on the Salem Community Vision Facebook page, a great question has been asked:

Members of Salem Community Vision are looking for some positive suggestions on how to make the Civic Center a more vibrant, people centered gathering place.

If you have some suggestions how to make the Peace Plaza better, or the Mirror Pond more inviting, or even how to liven up the interiors of the Center, please post some of your ideas.

SCV thinks that we can enhance what we already have without having to tear down our valuable assets.

This reminded me of a night not long ago, Christmas Eve. My wife and I were eating at the Marco Polo Global Restaurant. Our table overlooked the area that is called Millrace Plaza. 

Some Christmas lights shone on the walkway and water. No one was on the plaza. Laurel and I talked some about how Salem should make better use of the creekside areas so close to downtown. 

The Civic Center's Mirror Pond is right across the street. I don't recall ever visiting Mirror Pond, though I drive by it often. It is barely visible from Commercial and Liberty streets. Here's a Google Maps image of the area.

Our table at Marco Polo was on the second floor of the building in the middle of the photo on the right, just past the greenery below the "Trade" [street].

Mirror Pond is near the bottom of the middle of the photo, with Pringle Creek flowing above the the pond, past the old large empty Boise Cascade building with the white roof, and then into the Willamette River on the edge of Riverfront Park.

It'd be great to vitalize this area.

Downtown Salem doesn't have many public spaces -- no "squares" where people can gather, people-watch, eat, relax, enjoy a bit of nature. But something needs to draw folks into the Mirror Pond/Millrace Plaza area.

How about... food carts! Plus, better lighting. And that's about how far my great idea goes at the moment.

I don't know how practical this is; exactly where food carts could be located; how easy it is, or could be, to get to Mirror Pond; what sorts of amenities could be added there to make this a place that people would want to visit on a lunch hour or downtown stroll. 

For year round use, some shelter against rain and wind would be needed. I picture outdoor tables nestled under some sort of Oregon'ish rustic wood structure. 

Creative food cart offerings. Good coffee. Pastries and other snacks. I'd be drawn there. Even in the rain. 

There's already a plan to build a path along Pringle Creek through the Boise Cascade property. The original 2009 proposal included the food cart notion.

The 2009 Statesman Journal story describes what was envisioned by Mountain West Investment.

A path winding along the banks of Pringle Creek has long been in the plans for the Boise Cascade site's proposed redevelopment. The path is intended to become a signature feature of the downtown Salem development, as well as a connection to pedestrian and bike trails. 

...The path would have a plaza with room for food cart vendors, as well as outdoor seating for a restaurant. It would run under the railroad bridge at the Boise site, as well as under Commercial Street SE, and could become another way to reach Riverfront Park.

Again, remember that what's talked about above is the creekside property just downstream from Mirror Pond.

Why couldn't the Mirror Pond area be a "test case" for the Boise site's eventual redevelopment. See how food carts work upstream of that site.

My StreetStrider riding tips -- after 35 fun miles

I'm two weeks into my StreetStrider riding experience. After eight enjoyable outings, totaling 35 miles according to my RunMeter iPhone app, I'm a believer in this outdoor elliptical machine. 

Which I usually call a "bike," since it has three wheels and bike parts -- brakes, shifter, chain, etc. As noted in my first StreetStrider post, I had it assembled by a local bicycle shop.

After my first 2.6 mile ride, I felt like the StreetStrider had kicked my butt. And I'm a 65 year old guy in very good shape. Now, StreetStrider and I are like good buddies rather than sparring partners. 

I've learned a lot about how to ride the StreetStrider. Below I'll share some tips.

My favorite route is 5.3 miles at Minto Brown Island Park here in Salem, Oregon. It's got some mild to moderate ups and downs. With a short rest/water break, it takes me about 39 minutes. Average speed: 8.2 mph.  Top speed: 15.7 mph.

Terrific workout. I'm already feeling like I'm in considerably better shape than I was before. Equally important is how much freaking fun the StreetStrider is.

No way am I going back to exercising on an indoor elliptical machine at our athletic club. I go to the club after a StreetStrider ride to lift weights, do some yoga/Tai Chi, and shower. My vow is to ride the StreetStrider rain or shine (here in Oregon during the winter, there's usually a lot more of the former than the latter).

On to the tips. I've been practicing Tai Chi for ten years and enjoy Taoist philosophy. So I'll share these tips in sort of a Tao of StreetStriding style.

(1) Become one with the StreetStrider. At first I fought the machine. I tried to control it. Then I realized that it knew how to StreetStride, and I didn't. I began to relax into the striding motion, letting the pedals and handlebars do their thing, with me following along. Much more enjoyable that way.

(2) Trust how you feel. There's a pace that feels "right on." It changes all the time. This depends on how I feel, which in turn depends on my energy level, weather conditions, terrain, other people on the multi-use trail, and such. I've learned to go as fast or as slow as I feel like going. Pushing too hard isn't fun. "Patience, grasshopper."

(3) Hold lightly the handlebars. Most of my StreetStriding energy seems to come from the pedals. Usually the push-pull motion of the handlebars provides minimal extra motion, unless I'm going up a fairly steep hill. So I grip the handlebars loosely. The StreetStrider wants to "carve" back and forth like being on skis or riding a longboard/skateboard. Allow it to do its thing.

(4) Shift weight side to side, not back and forth. After my initial ride I had some soreness in my left calf. I think it was because I was unconsciously trying to move the StreetStrider pedals forward and back, rather than simply shifting my weight side to side. Left-right weight transfer provides the power, not pushing the pedals forward and back.

(5) Turn by leaning outward. For a while I turned by stopping pedaling, then weighting the leg on the side I wanted to turn toward. This works fine, but I found that a better way to turn is by leaning my entire body outward in the desired turn direction. This lets me continue pedaling through a turn. And is more fun.

(6) Get down for more power. When StreetStrider and I are in sync, which usually takes me a mile or so given my relative "newbie" status, I feel like the striding power comes from my core rather than my legs and arms. Particularly when I'm actively using the handlebars to get up a hill in a low gear. Then it feels like my body also is lower; everything sinks; energy flows from the abdomen.

(7) Stride slower, go faster. As noted in (1), at every moment there's a striding motion that, like Goldilocks experienced, is just right. Not too fast, not too slow. The more I StreetStride, however, the slower it is. Probably because I'm generating more power, so feel comfortable in a higher gear. Pedaling fast in a low gear isn't as enjoyable or necessary, unless I'm pumping up a steep hill that takes all my effort.

(8) Dance with your partner. I've begun to experience a dance-like quality to the StreetStrider. It's when I let the StreetStrider move as it wants to move, while I move as I want to move. Not sure who is doing the leading here. Maybe both of us. This is when I get a glimpse of the Tao or Joy of StreetStriding. 

This isn't like bicycling. This isn't like longboarding/skateboarding. This isn't like skiing. I can do all of these things. StreetStriding has some of the feel of each, yet has its own unique exercising personality. 

I'm hooked. 

Now, your experience on a StreetStrider will be different, because we're different people. The last few times I used the StreetStrider I thought, "I was born to StreetStride" (sung off key inside my head to Born to Be Wild, of course).

I'm pretty adventurous. I rode a Burgman 650 maxi-scooter for a while. I've been into martial arts for a long time, Tai Chi for the past ten years. I took up "land paddling" on a longboard skateboard a few years ago, so find it natural to turn by leaning. 

Nonetheless, I think just about anyone would enjoy riding a StreetStrider.

And I say this of my own volition, with zero financial connection to the StreetStrider folks (they have a referral program where, I believe, you get $50 if someone you talk to buys a machine, but I haven't signed up for this).

To be able to exercise outside, having fun doing it, getting a great aerobic and core workout in 40 minutes or less, riding a "bike" that is safe (excellent brakes, three wheels, good handling) -- what's not to like?

Well, for some the size and weight.

I already had a two-inch hitch on our Highlander SUV, so bought a StreetStrider rack along with the StreetStrider. I have no problem lifting it on and off the rack, but some people would. The rack can decline, though, allowing the StreetStrider to be rolled onto it.

Without a rack or pickup, the StreetStrider would be tough to carry around in most vehicles. Some models fold, but not the 8-speed version, which I definitely recommend if you plan to use the machine on anything but flats and mild inclines. HIlls are tough even with 8-speeds, believe me.

On the whole, my two week, 35 mile review of the StreetStrider is... all smiles.

Salem Community Vision answers questions about police facility proposal

Over on Salem Breakfast on Bikes, a must-read blog for anyone who cares about transportation and land use issues in our city, there's an interesting comment conversation.

It is on this post about the City of Salem's proposal to spend $70 million plus on a new police facility on Civic Center property and seismic retrofitting of some or all of the Civic Center.

The Breakfast on Bikes blog administrator chimed in with some comments and questions of his own.

Geoff James, an architect involved with Salem Community Vision (recently formed group that seeks more and better community input into decisions that affect our city's livability and prosperity), responded to those questions. 

Here's James' response, mildly edited to correct typos and formatted to improve readability. This is a good overview of the issues that Salem's citizens need to be involved in considering as discussion of the City's bond proposal moves forward.

As one of the Salem Community Vision team, I actually agree with many of your points. Salem Community Vision is for a new police facility, just not for a palace forced onto the Civic Center lake [Mirror Pond].

It's very expensive, because of the underground parking garage, the displacement of the council chambers, and we lose all our trees and open space.

We are not in a fight with the City: we just wish they would change their expensive plan so that a bond measure will pass. Their $70 million plan will go down to defeat, and we want a new police facility and the seismic [retrofitting] to happen.

Yes, there are lots of improvements needed at the Civic Center, like the access to the council chambers, via maybe a glass elevator, and better restrooms. But let's not take out all the open space.

We criticize the city cost estimates, not for their accuracy, but for their content.

They have 235 parking spaces for staff, all underground, for a stated cost of $13 million. So that's more than $50,000 a parking space. A parking garage should be $20,000 a space, and a parking lot should be $2,000 a space. We just favor the $2,000 number.

You ask these questions:

1) Why is Peace Plaza so great and effective that it shouldn't be altered or even relocated?

I agree. It needs a lot of improvement, and Salem Community Vision has an architect and a design-build specialist who have ideas and cost estimates for improvements.

2) How is Mirror Pond so wonderful that it shouldn't be modernized?

I do not like the term modernized. The aeration and maintenance of the lake has been neglected, like most city owned facilities. They have over 100 buildings, and I understand deferred maintenance totals over $100 million. I happen to think Mirror Pond should be enhanced: so we agree.

3) Why shouldn't we want to reconfigure the Civic Center in ways to make it more walkable and lively?

Yes, we should, and Salem Community Vision designers have been hard at work on that too. But we are working people, running businesses, so we do the volunteer work in our spare time, like you.

4) What specifically about the four City estimates is not credible? (Not just the repeated claim, "but Eugene did it cheaper!").

The City estimates are all different. At one point it had a $19 million parking garage proposed for under the Peace Plaza for 100 staff cars. Just do the math on that, to see how much a parking space. Plus it gets the bond closer to $100 million. So they took that out.

5) What do we give up in redevelopment and property tax opportunities when we don't use land the City already owns for a new Police Station? Why is the City's claim about operational inefficiencies from a remote site not credible?

We favor the city owned site across the street, and that is the recommendation of the city funded Urban Land Institute Report, that the addition be at "Civic Center West" where the SWAT vehicles are parked. The City claims operational efficiencies of $500,000 a year by locating police at Civic Center. But that means it would take 60 years to realize those savings because Salem Community Vision has shown that an off site location saves $33 million.

6) Apart from the question of cost, how exactly does the Eugene model promote neighborhoods and livability? Apart from cost, what kinds of Salem solutions would best promote neighborhoods and livability?

The Eugene model is half the cost, so the neighbors pay half the tax increase. The first responders will be able to help us after the Big One instead of being trapped in their $13 million basement. The adaptive reuse of an existing 70,000 building with 200+ parking spaces (for $10 million) is a more sustainable solution, and just needs alterations to suit the police department accommodations.

I do think we should stop squabbling. I agree with all your points. We are on the same side. Let's discuss how we all might work to pass an improved plan and bond to achieve all these things.

Geoff James
www.salemcommunityvision.com

l'll add some of my own thoughts about question 6). I've heard some talk about the benefits of having Salem's police headquarters out in the community, rather than at the Civic Center.

Makes sense to me.

We need to do some "out of the box" thinking here. Why should the police staff who protect and serve Salem's citizens be housed in a new three story building at the already cramped Civic Center property, complete with bunker-style expensive underground parking?

Why not have a more open and accessible police headquarters much nearer to where most Salemians live and work? Would it be possible to have this headquarters include aspects of a community center? How would it change the image of the police department to have an outdoor basketball court where officers play pick-up games with Salem residents, or a coffee shop (dare I suggest a donut shop) where officers and citizens can mingle and socialize?

Maybe these are crazy unworkable ideas.

But, hey, these and other ideas are worth considering before Salem taxpayers are asked to pay $70 million or more for a City bond levy that, so far, has involved very little community input/discussion.